2
2
0
Any advice on this situation would be appreciated. I'm going to keep this as generic as possible. I'm currently reviewing an EPR where I am in the chain, but not the rater/additional rater (I'm a few steps below the Commander).
Case - member has a UIF, multiple LORs/LOCs, verbal counseling, etc. in his PIF for a couple different items. This is reflected by an assessment of "Does Not Meet" in Section III, Area 2 (Standards, Conduct, Character & Military Bearing). The other areas are rated "Above Average" (I think one of those may be generous and am really leaning towards another being a "meets"). For anyone unfamiliar with Air Force EPRs, the other areas are 1 - Primary/Additional Duties; 3 - Fitness; 4 - Training Requirements; 5 - Teamwork/Followership; & 6 - Other Comments.
First I know this should automatically generate a referral EPR, since "Does Not Meet" was marked in one area.
AFI36-2406:
1.10.3. When to Refer a Performance Evaluation. Performance evaluations must be referred when:
1.10.3.3. An evaluator marks "Does Not Meet Standards" in Section III of the EPR.
Another section of the AFI also states:
3.1.8.2. The evaluation becomes a referral evaluation and must be referred IAW paragraph 1.10 if:
3.1.8.2.1. The ratee fails to meet standards in any one of the listed performance assessment factors in Section III, Performance Assessment. Note: A referral EPR may not have an overall assessment of "5".
Flip to the back side of the EPR & the rater/additional rater overall assessments are both an "Average - 3" (out of 5). I really can't see giving an overall rating of average if you received a "Does Not Meet" anywhere on the front of the EPR, but according to the AFI references above, it is allowable (heck, even an "Above Average - 4" is apparently allowable).
Talk me into/out of having a more lengthy discussion with the rater/additional rater about changing the overall assessment on this EPR to a 2 vs. a 3. I don’t think it’s going to fly up my chain as well and plan to advise the rater of that and hopefully save him the time/pain involved if higher ranking members in the chain review/chime in on the matter before the final draft is complete.
Also, I'm not sure how to reflect this on the EPR of the RATER in this case since I am also reviewing his at the same time. It almost calls into question how I should be rating him in leadership if I think he is being too soft on his airman.
Case - member has a UIF, multiple LORs/LOCs, verbal counseling, etc. in his PIF for a couple different items. This is reflected by an assessment of "Does Not Meet" in Section III, Area 2 (Standards, Conduct, Character & Military Bearing). The other areas are rated "Above Average" (I think one of those may be generous and am really leaning towards another being a "meets"). For anyone unfamiliar with Air Force EPRs, the other areas are 1 - Primary/Additional Duties; 3 - Fitness; 4 - Training Requirements; 5 - Teamwork/Followership; & 6 - Other Comments.
First I know this should automatically generate a referral EPR, since "Does Not Meet" was marked in one area.
AFI36-2406:
1.10.3. When to Refer a Performance Evaluation. Performance evaluations must be referred when:
1.10.3.3. An evaluator marks "Does Not Meet Standards" in Section III of the EPR.
Another section of the AFI also states:
3.1.8.2. The evaluation becomes a referral evaluation and must be referred IAW paragraph 1.10 if:
3.1.8.2.1. The ratee fails to meet standards in any one of the listed performance assessment factors in Section III, Performance Assessment. Note: A referral EPR may not have an overall assessment of "5".
Flip to the back side of the EPR & the rater/additional rater overall assessments are both an "Average - 3" (out of 5). I really can't see giving an overall rating of average if you received a "Does Not Meet" anywhere on the front of the EPR, but according to the AFI references above, it is allowable (heck, even an "Above Average - 4" is apparently allowable).
Talk me into/out of having a more lengthy discussion with the rater/additional rater about changing the overall assessment on this EPR to a 2 vs. a 3. I don’t think it’s going to fly up my chain as well and plan to advise the rater of that and hopefully save him the time/pain involved if higher ranking members in the chain review/chime in on the matter before the final draft is complete.
Also, I'm not sure how to reflect this on the EPR of the RATER in this case since I am also reviewing his at the same time. It almost calls into question how I should be rating him in leadership if I think he is being too soft on his airman.
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 17
I don't see how this is all that tough. A "2" is appropriate with the outlined paperwork...Average "3" Airmen do not require this much paperwork to keep behavior in line with standards. I don't have the EPR in front of me but I believe "2" Airmen "need improvement", definitely appropriate here. My advice, write the "2" to send a message to both the Amn and your squadron...Amn talk and the will quickly learn that leadership believes and is not scared to hold folks accountable...BTW, make sure your Shirt is involved. I would also be prepared to go with NJP, you guys are very close to this step on the progressive discipline continuum. Lastly, the Enlisted Force Structure says jr. Amn most conform to military life (paraphrasing)...if supervision and the chain is actively involved, the "2" EPR is the appropriate reflection of performance or lack there of. VR,
(4)
(0)
As a personnelist I agree with the majority of the comments...;however, no one can force or improperly pressure the rater to change his/her rating. The additional rater or commander can disagree and document it per the Afi but the rating is the raters decision (for epr points it is the additional raters number that counts anyway).
(4)
(0)
Realize that a 2 EPR does not take him out of the running, because a referral EPR makes him ineligible to test, so with the new system its only his EPRs since he was eligible to test that count, so the 2 may never see the light of day.
(3)
(0)
A referral 3 may be warranted based on his duty performance, a frank discussion with the Rater is definitely in order to determine their intent. Upon talking with the Rater you may be able to get a better feeling for how to address their EPR.
(2)
(0)
First off, it is a referral. That much active administrative punishment to me means a 2. It looks like the appropriate steps were taken to educate him, verbal-->LOC-->LOR-->UIF. Personally, if his inability to meet standards warranted all that paperwork, he probably needs to be discharged.
But if Article 15 and/or admin. discharge are not desired actions, make him re-enlistment ineligible and see if he can finish him term with an honorable. If past experience is any indication, he'll end up kicking himself out.
But if Article 15 and/or admin. discharge are not desired actions, make him re-enlistment ineligible and see if he can finish him term with an honorable. If past experience is any indication, he'll end up kicking himself out.
(2)
(0)
This is how we got into an inflated EPR system to begin with. If every Airman is a 3, the top performers are 4, and the best of the best are 5, then a UIF, referal markings on the front should merrit a 2 overall.
Sounds like an easy situation to me, member is a 2.
Sounds like an easy situation to me, member is a 2.
(1)
(0)
Totally understand your concerns. At the same time you can not make anyone change their ratings, you can recommend but that's all you can do.
(1)
(0)
Under the old EPR system I would say a referral 3, but under the new quota system, definitely a 2.
(1)
(0)
Ended up having a pretty long discussion with my Supt, the rater/additional rater and next Lt Col in my chain about this yesterday.
We all came to the conclusion to give a 2 assessment.
It probably would have been a 4 rating with his current level of performance. We took the stance that the LOC's and LOR's (plus 1 PT test failure in the period) would have taken him down to a 3. The final LOR (for the same infraction as a previous LOC and LOR) got him on a UIF as well. That took him down to a 2.
I don't think the kid is a dirtbag, but it took MULTIPLE levels of counseling to finally get him to realize he needed to stop screwing up.
This is his first EPR after tech school, so it's probably not a career killer, but he definitely won't make SSgt the first go around even if he turns it all around and gets 5's on his next EPRs.
This was the rater's first time supervising and first EPR he's written, so he was initially trying not to be too harsh on the airman.
We all came to the conclusion to give a 2 assessment.
It probably would have been a 4 rating with his current level of performance. We took the stance that the LOC's and LOR's (plus 1 PT test failure in the period) would have taken him down to a 3. The final LOR (for the same infraction as a previous LOC and LOR) got him on a UIF as well. That took him down to a 2.
I don't think the kid is a dirtbag, but it took MULTIPLE levels of counseling to finally get him to realize he needed to stop screwing up.
This is his first EPR after tech school, so it's probably not a career killer, but he definitely won't make SSgt the first go around even if he turns it all around and gets 5's on his next EPRs.
This was the rater's first time supervising and first EPR he's written, so he was initially trying not to be too harsh on the airman.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Sir,
I totally understand what you're saying, but that's exactly my point. Especially with "do more with less". Having people getting involved in EPRs that shouldn't be just takes more time and productivity away from those people.
I don't understand why there was an issue with having conflicting ratings on the EPR or how that would paint the rater in a negative light. People don't always agree about another person's performance, but that's why there are two sets of ratings on the EPR. If everyone had to agree or if it was negative to have conflicting ratings why have the two to begin with?
You say that the meeting wasn't to get him to change his rating but then say it was to "save him the pain" if he'd sent it up as a 3, which reads an awful lot like it was "recommended he change it before the CC and Supt kicked it back with a directive to change it". That might not be what you meant, but that's how it reads.
My apologies, I know this reads very aggressively but that is not my intent. I'm just presenting An argument from the side of the rater who, all too often nowadays,is being told how to rate their troops. There is a very high level of frustration and I don't believe most officers understand how much it upsets us that they think they know our troops better or that their opinions on our troops' rating are more important. I've seen a number of supervisors bullied into changing a rating and I can't tell you how mad it makes me. Hopefully the new system will help with that but I believe the discussion still has merit.
I totally understand what you're saying, but that's exactly my point. Especially with "do more with less". Having people getting involved in EPRs that shouldn't be just takes more time and productivity away from those people.
I don't understand why there was an issue with having conflicting ratings on the EPR or how that would paint the rater in a negative light. People don't always agree about another person's performance, but that's why there are two sets of ratings on the EPR. If everyone had to agree or if it was negative to have conflicting ratings why have the two to begin with?
You say that the meeting wasn't to get him to change his rating but then say it was to "save him the pain" if he'd sent it up as a 3, which reads an awful lot like it was "recommended he change it before the CC and Supt kicked it back with a directive to change it". That might not be what you meant, but that's how it reads.
My apologies, I know this reads very aggressively but that is not my intent. I'm just presenting An argument from the side of the rater who, all too often nowadays,is being told how to rate their troops. There is a very high level of frustration and I don't believe most officers understand how much it upsets us that they think they know our troops better or that their opinions on our troops' rating are more important. I've seen a number of supervisors bullied into changing a rating and I can't tell you how mad it makes me. Hopefully the new system will help with that but I believe the discussion still has merit.
(1)
(0)
Maj Matt Hylton
MSgt (Join to see) So flip side, how would you feel as the additional rater (or the additional rater's rater, which is where I fit in here) if you see your best SrA trying to help his A1C, but the A1C repeatedly failing and getting paperwork from the SrA, his additional rater, the Supt and then the section chief (me in this situation). Finally, while the EPR is being drafted, the A1C screws up again and it goes up to the CC for further disciplinary action. Then you see the draft EPR with a 3 rating - how do you handle the situation? How does it reflect upon the SrA's leadership abilities if he thinks an A1C with those types of disciplinary problems deserves a 3 rating?
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
As the additional rater's rater I wouldn't say anything. At least not in an official capacity. I can't let my feelings, biases, or standards dictate what another supervisor does. That person's standards are their own. They won't always line up with mine. I might ask the SrA what his standards for that A1C were, but that's it. I always hold my troops to much higher standards but I give them the tools and encouragement to meet and exceed those standards. As a SrA he's likely still learning his leadership style and what his standards really are. It's incredibly difficult to not project your feelings, opinions, and standards into another, especially when we don't agree with them.
(0)
(0)
SMSgt Matthew Hoyer
The SrA is too young in his career to not be at least a partial bleeding heart. It's a mentorship moment for you to go talk to him and say that you understand his position, you know it sucks having to deliver bad news to someone (in the form of a 2 EPR), but that it is a moment of growth for both of them. He can talk to his A1C and show him that these are the consequences of his decisions and reassure him that his career is not completely over. In fact, with the new focus on *recent* performance, it will likely have no impact to his career at all in about 3 years. And he gets some free experience out of the deal too. But handing out a 3 or (god, does it really say that?) 4 on a referral EPR sends a very mixed message.
(1)
(0)
This is a tough one, all I can say is take the "I think" out of the constellation, take a step back and evaluate as a neutral person, who would not know him...
(1)
(0)
Read This Next